Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Uh, no. The other way round. He said, this is a tourist attraction, give us money. Then after they'd said yes, he's all "Ta-da it's a Christian ministry! Now, about that money?" So that after Ham initially got the tax breaks on the grounds that he was building a tourist attraction, the FRC is explaining that they AiG should be allowed to discriminate because they're a "religious organization".Well, religious organizations are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, but they don't get public subsidies. Ham can have his cake, or he can eat it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Except that this has nothing to do with tax exemption. Instead, it's about tax incentives that the state is now no longer going to pay to the park. But please, feel free to continue to toss random, irrelevant thoughts in from time to time to spice things up.

I'm not sure any of us has this figured out yet. There is no doubt that this IS a tourist attraction, a theme park, a business enterprise that expects to make a profit, and as such it should qualify for the tax rebate that is offered to exactly this sort of business, so there wouldn't have been any subterfuge in applying for that rebate on these grounds.It is run, however, by a known religious organization, that hires only Christians because it wouldn't make sense to have nonChristians doing the apologetics work they do.But is that perfectly reasonable hiring practice by the ministry itself the reason they are now being disqualified for the rebate or is it because the theme park is also to hire only Christians, and if the latter I'm not sure why that would be necessary.First let me say that if I could be persuaded that it is necessary just as it is for the apologetics ministry, then I'd argue that there should be no problem caused by their hiring policy just because it is a business that simply happens to be run by a Christian organization. However, this isn't apologetics where you'd have to have Christians because of the very work itself, it's a physical ark with related attractions where people would be manning various stations, conducting visitors around the place, explaining this that and the other and so on.I'm not sure why they would require only Christian employees for any of that. Policy positions and that sort of thing OK, but not the everyday running of a theme park.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As you yourself noted, there is no legitimate business reason to require that all the hot dog venders, and litter collectors, and bathroom cleaners be Christian. The only conclusion left is that they simply wish to discriminate against non-Christians in their hiring practices. Please, try to take a moment, sit back and consider this. Don't assume that just because it is a Christian run organization that it cannot have evil motives. If there is no legitimate business reason for hiring only Christians for non-apologetics positions, what other possible reason could there be, other than discrimination against non-Christians?If you can think of no other reason, and if you agree that discrimination against non-Christians in hiring for non-apologetics positions is wrong, then you may begin to understand why the state of Kentucky is no longer willing to subsidize this endeavor.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are right about that as his strategy although it's hard to imagine that anyone wouldn't know AIG is a religious organization and raise any relevant questions in advance.

---

Ark Encounter is nominally separate from AiG, and is organised as a for-profit enterprise. Now it is pretty obvious that the Ark Encounter is all about promoting sectarian religious views and that they were offered the exemptions despite that. So it's hard to say that there's any actual religious discrimination against them.The problem only started when Ark Encounter engaged in obvious religious discrimination in their hiring practices as the
Lexington Herald-Leader reports.And might I ask why you think that listening only to AiG's claims is going to give you a fair assessment of the situation ? Do you really think that they would openly admit that the lawsuit is baseless ?

quote:

---

I'm not sure any of us has this figured out yet

---

The only real question is WHY AiG is launching this meritless lawsuit. Have they really fooled themselves into believing their own propaganda, or do they hope to use it is a fund-raising exercise.

quote:

---

There is no doubt that this IS a tourist attraction, a theme park, a business enterprise that expects to make a profit, and as such it should qualify for the tax rebate that is offered to exactly this sort of business, so there wouldn't have been any subterfuge in applying for that rebate on these grounds.

---

Well there are questions about the study on expected visitor numbers, so there is a possibility of subterfuge even there. But they were awarded the tax exemptions until they started posting discriminatory job adverts.

quote:

---

It is run, however, by a known religious organization, that hires only Christians because it wouldn't make sense to have nonChristians doing the apologetics work they do.

---

And AiG do just that with no problems at all. This isn't about AiG, it's about the for-profit Ark Encounter company which only exists to build and run the theme park. This is not some obscure detail it's a central - and well-known fact of the case. If AiG have been blurring that distinction then they aren't being honest about it.

quote:

---

But is that perfectly reasonable hiring practice by the ministry itself the reason they are now being disqualified for the rebate or is it because the theme park is also to hire only Christians, and if the latter I'm not sure why that would be necessary.

---

It's because the theme park decided to hire only Christians. It all started with a job advert for a Computer-Aided Design technician that required applicants to identify their Church membership, state their belief on the age of the Earth, provide a Salvation Testimony, a Creation Belief Statement and agree to the AiG Statement of Faith.
sourceNow I guess that you could explain all that away by saying that they accidentally used a form intended for AiG, and not for the theme park.
But AiG themselves have ruled out that defence, and the current line is that they can do all that for any job with Ark Encounter.

You are all jumping to the worst possible construction on Ham's motives. I'd guess something more benign of course, maybe he's just in the habit of hiring Christians and needs to get around to rethinking it, maybe he thinks the project would be more successful if all-Christian, or maybe he thinks the state is being too heavy-handed in telling him who he can hire and wants to make a case for religious freedom at that level. I don't know.I do think now that he might be missing out on something by insisting on it though, since a Christian minister should be happy to be surrounded by so many nonChristian workers where he has the opportunity to expose them to the gospel. Lots of young people would just find the ark fun to work around.In any case after getting more of the facts I think he should change his mind and plan to hire whoever comes qualified for the job. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are all jumping to the worst possible construction on Ham's motives.

---

I've been following this story for some time. I've yet to hear of any honest justification for the claims of religious discrimination, and you haven't either.

quote:

---

I'd guess something more benign of course, maybe he's just in the habit of hiring Christians and needs to get around to rethinking it, maybe he thinks the project would be more successful if all-Christian, or maybe he thinks the state is being too heavy-handed in telling him who he can hire and wants to make a case for religious freedom at that level. I don't know.

---

And none of those guesses can justify the lawsuit. Ham has had months to rethink, and chose to stay on course and file a lawsuit instead. He hasn't been prevented from hiring only Christians either. He has just lost tax exemptions after intentionally, knowingly and openly going against the conditions attached. The conditions are not in themselves religiously discriminatory either - anyone who refused to hire Christians to work in a for-profit enterprise would be disqualified under the same regulations.No, you need to offer evidence of actual religious discrimination to justify Ham's lawsuit.

AIG is a 501(c3) which may discriminate. The Ark Park is a separate for-profit legal entity which may not. Hambo tried a pretty obvious end run; advertising for a CAD draftsperson to be hired by AIG (and therefore had to meet their standards) but who would be loaned to Ark Park and would work exclusively for Ark park.

Your lawyer needs to go back to school. Only certain certified non-profit organizations are allowed to ignore US discrimination laws in hiring no matter what they think their "identity" is. Ask your friend if a for-profit organization with an all-white "identity" can refuse to hire other races.Ark Park is a for-profit enterprise that is subject to the anti-discrimination laws.

They qualified until AIG tried a pathetic and transparent scheme to avoid the fact that Ark Park may not discriminate in hiring, just like any for-profit entity. Tourist attraction or other.

You can find a lawyer to argue anything you want. This case is a slam-dunk loss for Hambo.

In law the Ark Park is not under AIG and (again in law) has no relationship with AIG. That's the whole point.

The law does not require a certified religious organization to hire people who don't share their beliefs. Hambo chose to set up the Ark Park as a separate for-profit non-religious organization, presumably so he could reap the profits. Ark Park must follow US anti-discrimination laws.

That's why AIG chose to create a separate legal entity to be Ark park. Ark park is not a religious organization. AIG chose to set it up as a non-religious organization (In law, that is; everybody knows what's really going on. But what matters here is the law.) It could bring a trillion dollars into the state every year and would still have o compl with anti-discrimination laws.Irrelevant, but seeing the attendance figures for the Creation Museum and the rapidly declining projections of Ark Park attendance there is a good chance the government will lose out on the incentives still in place.